[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-eastlake-dnsext-2929bis) 00
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5395
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes RFC 2929 Motorola Laboratories
Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597
Expires: February 2008 August 2007
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------
<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt>
Status of This Document
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become
the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the
DNS Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System
(DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Table of Contents
Status of This Document....................................1
Abstract...................................................1
Table of Contents..........................................2
1. Introduction............................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................7
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................8
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................10
3.3 Label Considerations..................................12
3.3.1 Label Types.........................................12
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................12
4. Security Considerations................................12
5. IANA Considerations....................................13
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................14
Additional IPR Provisions.................................16
Copyright.................................................16
Normative References......................................17
Informative References....................................18
Author's Address..........................................19
Expiration and File Name..................................19
Disclaimer................................................19
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
hierarchical databases which store "resource records" (RRs) under
domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which
can be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
[RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is
assumed.
This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
IANA parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query
and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA
considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or
query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or
query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been
defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183] which are
included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See
<http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>.
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required",
and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC2434].
2. DNS Query/Response Headers
The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ID |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so
they can be matched.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful
only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However,
some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value
of the response header without clearing bits. Thus any attempt to
use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define
a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing
implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF
Standards Action.
The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
(ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
opcodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same
structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.
2.1 One Spare Bit?
There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being
on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for
a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS
implementations ignore this bit.
Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action.
2.2 Opcode Assignment
Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:
OpCode Name Reference
0 Query [RFC1035]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425]
2 Status [RFC1035]
3 available for assignment
4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136]
6-15 available for assignment
New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified
by [RFC4020].
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
2.3 RCODE Assignment
It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
RCODE, or response/error code are available. However, RCODEs can
appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside
OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The
OPT RR provides an eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit RCODE
field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16 bit RCODE field.
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types
all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of
error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its
meaning in other contexts. See table below.
RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [RFC1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136]
11 - 15 Available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930]
22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment
3,841 - 4,095
0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use
4,096 - 65,534
0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment
65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF
Standards Action.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"
requires an IETF Consensus.
3. DNS Resource Records
All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below
taken from [RFC1035].
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
/ /
/ NAME /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TYPE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| CLASS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TTL |
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| RDLENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
/ RDATA /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this
resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described
in section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more
labels each of which has a label type [RFC1035], [RFC2671].
TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
codes. See section 3.1.
CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
codes. See section 3.2.
TTL is a four octet (32 bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for
data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be
cached before the source of the information should again be
consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used
for the transaction in progress.
RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16 bit integer that specifies the length in
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
octets of the RDATA field.
RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the
resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE
and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record.
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations
There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
and Meta-TYPEs.
Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in
queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message and in some cases can also be used in queries.
Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upwards plus the block
from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs
have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR
which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which
made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the
RRTYPE.
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG
[RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs
assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
RRTYPEs have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for CLASSes and which must match the following regular
expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR
[RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances and must never
be allocated for ordinary use.
1 - 127
0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified in
section 3.1.1.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
128 - 255
0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining RRTYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q
and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
specified in section 3.1.1.
256 - 61,439
0x0100 - 0xEFFF - assigned for data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE
Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1.
61,440 - 65,279
0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Consensus required to
define use.
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on
DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy are allocated by Expert Review if they
meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a
small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will
be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the
selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
interest, IANA may selected another Expert from the pool.
Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs
that do not meet the requirements below, may nonetheless be allocated
by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
1. A complete template as specified in Annex A has been posted for
three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before
the Expert Review decision.
Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
directly by the applicant for comment and discussion but the
formal posting to start the three week period is made by IANA.
2. The RR for which a RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a
data TYPE which can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in
[RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type who processing is optional, i.e.,
which it is safe to simply discard.
Note that such RRs may include additional section processing
provided such processing is optional.
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines
The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the namedroppers mailing list
and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The Expert
should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one
or more of the following criterion:
1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
evaluate or implement.
2. Proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not meet
the criteria in point 2 in Section 3.1.1 above.
3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete.
(Additional documentation can be provided during the public
comment period or by the Expert.)
4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME etc.
5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use
values.
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR
The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are
specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the
effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label
type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for
resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
from 4 to 12 bits.
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field
The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same
RDATA field structure as the MX RR but the 16 bit unsigned integer
field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as
follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
1
0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183].
2
0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183].
3 - 65,279
0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus.
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations
There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data
containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries
or updates.
DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary
relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have
completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every
CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would
be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular
DNS message and which might be usable in queries. However, it is
possible that their might be a future requirement for one or more
"meta-CLASSes".
CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular
expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
assignments are as follows:
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.
1
0x0001 - Internet (IN).
2
0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS.
3
0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].
4
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].
5 - 127
0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data
CLASSes only.
128 - 253
0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for
QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
254
0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].
255
0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].
256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus.
32,768 - 57,343
0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on
Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434].
57,344 - 65,279
0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based
on Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434].
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
3.3 Label Considerations
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].
3.3.1 Label Types
At the present time, there are two categories of label types, data
labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to
data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to
shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.
The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
including zero value octets but many current uses involve only [US-
ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper
and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are
bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental
[RFC3363].
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671].
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use
The last label in each NAME is "ROOT" which is the zero length label.
By definition, the null or ROOT label can not be used for any other
NAME purpose.
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
[Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN or Internet
CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at
this time.
A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class
is given in [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain
names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606].
4. Security Considerations
This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
[RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
5. IANA Considerations
This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and
includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929]. It
affects the registry currently at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters and its subregistries.
1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs"
registry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification
Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE
Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be
"IETF Standards Action". It also specifies the "DNS TYPE
Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with additional
provisions and restrictions, including the sending of a completed
copy of the template in Annex A to <TBD@iana.org>, in most cases,
and requires "IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]" in
other cases. IANA shall establish a process for accepting such
templates, posting them to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing
list, selecting one of such Experts as have been appointed to
review such template form applications, and archive and make
available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. See Section
3.1 and Annex A for more details.
2. For Opcodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action"
allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]".
3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be IETF
Standards Action required. See Section 2.3.
4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field
which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.4.
5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and
query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
This template is to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing
the template to <TDB>@iana.org.
A. Submission Date:
B. Contact Information for submitter:
Name:
Email Address:
International telephone number:
Other contact handles:
C. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers
will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
application space.
D. Description of the proposed RR type. This description can be
provided in-line in the template, as an attachment or with a
publicly available URL:
E. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
need and why are they unsatisfactory?
F. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
template is accepted.
G. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Registry and if
so what is that registry or registries?
If a new registry is needed, specify allocation policy for it
and initial contents.
H. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
I. Comments:
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Additional IPR Provisions
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Copyright
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Normative References
[RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.
[RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136,
April 1997.
[RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC2434] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
2671, August 1999.
[RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)",
RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", September 2000.
[RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November
2002.
[RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005.
[RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March
2005.
[RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
March 2005.
[RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
4035, March 2005.
[RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication
Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers".
[US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.
Informative References
[Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987,
[Moon1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
1981.
[RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.
[RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
RFC 2673, August 1999.
[RFC2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
"Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929,
September 2000.
[RFC2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (
SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[RFC3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in
the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.
[RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations August 2007
Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola Laboratories
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w)
email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
Expiration and File Name
This draft expires February 2008.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt.
Disclaimer
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 19]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/